Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 Ill. 320

Bourk v. Riggs

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1865

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1865-04-15

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of the County of Kankakee; the Hon. Charles R. Starr, Judge, presiding. ■ On the áth of August, 1865, Louis Bourk instituted an action of replevin against William Biggs, before a justice of the peace in the County of Kankakee, for the recovery of a heifer. The cause was removed into the Circuit Court by appeal.

Relies on Vose v. Hart

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1929

8 state decisions

201865187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Walker

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2This was an action of replevin brought before a justice of the peace for the recovery of a heifer. The cause was removed to the Circuit Court by appeal, where a trial was had, when the jury returned a verdict, simply, that they found for the defendant. The court caused the verdict to be entered in this form: “We find the defendant not guilty.” Upon being inquired of by the court, the jury replied, that their verdict was based on the want of proof of a demand, and they had not passed upon the title to the property. Whereupon the plaintiff in error moved the court to send the jury back, and require them to pass upon that issue ; but the court overruled the motion, and entered up a judgment on the verdict.

¶3The verdict of not guilty, being responsive to the issues of non c&pit and non detinei, both admitting property in plaintiff in error, it was erroneous for the court to award a writ of retorno habendo. Such a judgment should not be rendered, unless it appears from the issues tried and the verdict returned that plaintiff is not the owner. Vose v. Hart, 12 Ill. 378; Johnson v. Howe, 2 Gilm. 342; Hanford v. Obrecht, (post.) For these errors the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded.

¶4Judgment reversed.

/38/ill/320 · .json · Public domain